4790k vs 5920k OC'ed

N

Nemik8800

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
252
I have searched for the past few hours trying to find some benchmarks of a 5820k @ 4.5ghz against a 4790k. I understand the 4790k has better single core performance than the 5820k however thats with the 5820k at stock clocks and it most chips can overclock to 4.5ghz.
I am doing a new gaming build and I want to future proof somewhat so I'd like to go with the x99 platform to take advantage of the DDR4 ram. If anyone has some info on how this chip performs at OC speeds that would be great.
 
Last edited:
They are practically identical when overclocked, as they are both Haswell architecture couple of % at most difference. One thing you gotta keep in mind is the 4790k will most of the time overclock more and the 5820k will also not always guarantee a 4.5. at the end of the day the difference is marginal the x99 will be getting Broadwell-E sometime next year and the 5820k being a 6 core is and I don't always like the term more "Future Proof".

If I were you and budget is no concern I would definitely go with the x99.
 
5820k you mean. I have a 5930k which is close to the 5820k but with 40 lanes. Peformance wise at 4.4ghz (I have it's conservatively clocked) I get similar performance to my old 4790k I sold 4 months ago.

That 4790k was clocked at 4.8ghz.

When it comes to synthetic benchmarks my 5930k always destroyed the 4790k but I take that with a grain of salt.


Have you considered Skylake? the i7-6700k looks like a winner and uses ddr4.
 
Nemik8800 said:
I have searched for the past few hours trying to find some benchmarks of a 5820k @ 4.5ghz against a 4790k. I understand the 4790k has better single core performance than the 5820k however thats with the 5820k at stock clocks and it most chips can overclock to 4.5ghz.
Click to expand...

The Core i7 4790k is a refresh of the Haswell architecture called Devil's Canyon. Functionally the difference between Devil's Canyon and Haswell is that the former has an improved thermal interface material between the core and the heat spreader to aid in overclocking. The Core i7 5820k is Haswell-E, which is a derivative of the Xeon E5 series, which is once again based on the same core architecture as Haswell. The Core i7 4970k can overclock to higher speeds than you will typically see on Haswell-E, but that's largely due to Haswell-E having 6 or 8 cores instead of 4. 4.5GHz is doable on Haswell-E, which seems to be good enough for most people. There are some games that can leverage more than four cores and there are other obvious benefits to going to X99 over Z97. The big benefit being that X99 has more PCIe lanes.

Nemik8800 said:
I am doing a new gaming build and I want to future proof somewhat so I'd like to go with the x99 platform to take advantage of the DDR4 ram. If anyone has some info on how this chip performs at OC speeds that would be great.
Click to expand...

The Z170 platform and Skylake architecture based processors also use DDR4. In fact the controller is better than the one in Haswell-E. Z170 is a more modern platform than X99 with full PCIe gen 3.0 support on all PCIe lanes and DMI 3.0. You also get a newer PCIe 3.0 based i219v Ethernet controller on motherboards that integrate an Intel PHY. The Z170 platform also has more lanes on the PCH than X99 does. Effectively you can get up to 36 lanes on Z170. You get 16 from the CPU's integrated PCIe controller and 20 from the PCH. On X99 you get 48, 40 of which are on the CPU (unless you go with a 5820k as that has 28 lanes) while the other 8 come from the PCH. Also motherboards using the Z170 Express chipset come with USB 3.1 support, many of which support the newer Type-C connector and the legacy Type-A. X99 generally lacks this.

Do you actually need the PCIe lanes offered by X99? The only way you are likely to is if you want to go with a multiGPU setup. If you do that's fine, but if your thinking about it and sticking with a 1080P monitor, I'd advise not wasting your money. Stick with a single, high end GPU and go with Z170. It's more modern and more "future proof." Maybe you don't need the lanes, but you use heavily multithreaded applications? If that's the case then X99 with a 5820K or higher end CPU would likely fit the bill better. This is especially true if you need more than 64GB of RAM.

If the above isn't you, or doesn't describe your needs then again, Z170 is the way to go.
 
X99 if you want brute force if pure performance as the context. An overclocked 5930K or even an overclocked 5820K into the 4.4-4.6ghz range has few competitors when you crank up the load.

Z170 if you want future-proofing if platform tech as the context. Bleeding edge platform stuff there, and the 66xxK/67xxK will keep up just fine to a point.

Microcenter still has those 5930Ks for $399.... ;)
 
Depends a lot on the game. Some games like GTAV can make use of more than 4 cores even today. That is why in GTAV a Haswell-E at 3Ghz is even faster than a regular Haswell at 3.5Ghz. On the other hand, you have games like World of Warcraft (Still the most popular MMO). WoW is a very CPU limited game, but only uses a handful of threads. You will typically have the main thread pegged to the max, with a few other threads doing minor work on the side. In that case, you would want as much performance per core as possible, as opposed to having more cores, so something like Skylake would be the clear choice.

Of course that is talking about today. Games are definitely becoming more multi-threaded over time. DX12 will do a lot to help multi-threaded CPU utilization. Many are quick to dismiss DX12, but combined with the fact that even DX11 games are now pushing beyond 4 cores, the road ahead is pretty clear.
 
This is my build so far:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i7-5930K 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($499.99 @ Micro Center)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i GTX 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i GTX 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i GTX 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Motherboard: Asus X99-PRO/USB 3.1 ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($319.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory ($84.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($81.49 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB Superclocked ACX 2.0 Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($493.98 @ Newegg)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 980 4GB Superclocked ACX 2.0 Video Card (2-Way SLI) ($493.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair Carbide Quiet 600Q ATX Mid Tower Case ($149.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair 1000W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($188.79 @ Amazon)
Other: Corsair HG N980 GPU Cooling bracket x(2) ($110.98)
Total: $2724.15
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-12-30 15:04 EST-0500
I think I'm gonna go with 5930k. I mainly wanna stick with x99 because that's going to be what Broadwell-E is going to be based on and those chips seem very promising. The logic for sticking with Haswell-E comes down to the fact that any game that isn't decently multithreaded is most likely not going to be demanding. I'm not saying the extra 2 cores are going to make a significant difference but it's there. I'm also a enthusiast so I want the best. Single thread performance seems to be irrelevant as you can run WoW on a potato. I will be gaming, however I also do 3d modeling, video editing, and photo editing. Low rendertimes are important to me. I also have 2 Dell U2412 monitors and I'm going to get a third monitor @ 144hz with 4k resolution when one become available.
 
Last edited:
Nemik8800 said:
The logic for sticking with Haswell-E comes down to the fact that any game that isn't decently multithreaded is most likely not going to be demanding.
Click to expand...
That isn't really true. It comes to how the game was made. Many games that aren't well multi-threaded can still max out the cores that they do use, and benefit from increased IPC. In many cases it's simply due to the limitations of DX11.

Nemik8800 said:
Single thread performance seems to be irrelevant as you can run WoW on a potato.
Click to expand...

WoW actually benefits greatly from increased single-thread performance. Maybe not if you are just randomly running around the map or doing casual content with a few other people, but in a raid or a battleground with lots of other people, the game can easily be brought to it's knees - and the bottleneck is almost always the CPU. If you are trying to maintain 120fps (as I am) it's even more of an issue. My old 2500K @ 5Ghz was hardly slow, but I got a clear performance increase moving to Haswell-E. WoW is my main game and I would have gone with Skylake if I didn't also do so much transcoding.
 
Looks pretty nice. Silly question, but why the 3 H100i coolers?

Strike that - looks like you are adapting CPU coolers to the GPUs.
 
GotNoRice said:
That isn't really true. It comes to how the game was made. Many games that aren't well multi-threaded can still max out the cores that they do use, and benefit from increased IPC. In many cases it's simply due to the limitations of DX11.



WoW actually benefits greatly from increased single-thread performance. Maybe not if you are just randomly running around the map or doing casual content with a few other people, but in a raid or a battleground with lots of other people, the game can easily be brought to it's knees - and the bottleneck is almost always the CPU. If you are trying to maintain 120fps (as I am) it's even more of an issue. My old 2500K @ 5Ghz was hardly slow, but I got a clear performance increase moving to Haswell-E. WoW is my main game and I would have gone with Skylake if I didn't also do so much transcoding.
Click to expand...

SWTOR is the same way. It's very much CPU limited. It also benefits from GPU performance, and even SLI to a degree. At 4k, I can't render it above 30FPS with the grass on high (on Voss for example) on my rig without the second TITAN X.
 
atp1916 said:
X99 if you want brute force if pure performance as the context. An overclocked 5930K or even an overclocked 5820K into the 4.4-4.6ghz range has few competitors when you crank up the load.

Z170 if you want future-proofing if platform tech as the context. Bleeding edge platform stuff there, and the 66xxK/67xxK will keep up just fine to a point.

Microcenter still has those 5930Ks for $399.... ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, the 5930k went back to 499.99 and has been there for a couple weeks now. I'm assuming it was Intel's very rare sale because Newegg did a sale on the 5930k but price went back up.


Anyways, 5820k and 4970k, I've had both chips O/C to 4.5 ghz. I did not see a difference whatsoever, there might have been a 1-2 FPS difference in favor of 4790k but other than that, none that I saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top